|
Letters
Quote of the Month: "I went to school with Chris Carter and would have never dreamed he would write some of [this] stuff."
-- Shelby, in response to "The Carter Conundrum"
The May 2000 edition of 11th Hour got a record number of letters on a variety of topics, but none so prevalent -- or depressing -- as fan reaction to Now and Again. "I just love Linda Najera's reviews of Now and Again, probably because I am a big fan of the show and Linda seems to nail it right on the head," wrote JoAnn Szewczyk two weeks before the CBS sci fi series was cruelly axed. "Tell Linda that I will storm CBS Headquarters with her if they don't renew the show for the fall." JoAnn will have plenty of company, it seems: "Please tell me this is a dream like in the 'There are No Words' episode," said Christy Brammer. "How can CBS do this? I am so, so very sad. It's the only show I watched on CBS. I'm going to be sending letters to CBS daily until I feel like they have listened. Why didn't they ever try to put the show on at a different time instead of putting it on after shows that no one watched?... I see why it was the only show I watched on CBS now."
Unable to accept the simple explanation that CBS is a portal of ungodly squirrel bastard evil, several readers tried to rationalize the network's actions. "Is it because Now & Again is difficult to categorize?" wondered Danny R. Lambert. "Trying to be all things, (however honorable) may have been its undoing, since the sci fi/romantic audience is an elusive and hard to capture group. I fear CBS may have dropped the ball and is in danger of losing the sci fi audience to the Sci Fi Channel's new Invisible Man series and the romantic fantasy bunch to Lifetime!" Or perhaps the series was simply too smart for its own good -- or for CBS, at any rate: "It's a wonderful little gem, reminiscent of the original Twilight Zone --- a great idea, movingly executed," wrote Debbie McCampbell of "There Are No Words." "It should be required viewing for anyone who claims to be a fan of genre entertainment." Other readers wrote in inquiring how they could help in the fight to save Now and Again, and, in response, we'd like to encourage everyone to check out the following sites:
Save Now and Again Campaign
Save Now and Again
Eric Close Screen Captures (for inspiration's sake, if nothing else.)
And when you're done egging CBS -- and really, we mean that -- check out what else readers had to say about last month's issue:
We're really big in Norway, we swear!
After having read your review of Gladiator, I realised it's about time I wrote the letter I've been meaning to write ever since I first discovered your magazine. The short version: Thank you! The slightly longer version: I've been reading genre-related magazines for years and been more and more annoyed by the growing fan boy-approach to everything SF/fantasy/horror. From reading mostly everything really, one would get the idea that the only people interested in these genres are guys spending far too much time ogling Jeri Ryan. Not that I find this problematic in itself - there is after all nothing wrong in lusting after sexy people - but the total lack of recognition of the female fans were starting to get on my nerves. So imagine my joy when finding 11th Hour, a magazine not only very well written, but by women who obviously enjoy the same things I do. That's why the Gladiator review finally made me write you. I haven't seen the film yet (I live in Norway where these things take time), but from the moment I heard about it I knew this had to be the film for me. After all, how can a film set in ancient Rome, by Ridley Scott with Russell Crowe in leather (and occasionally chains) not be good? If the film has an emotional dimension as well that's great, but that's not the reason why I want to see it. I want to see Gladiator for the action and Russell Crowe. Where did the idea come from that action-and genre-films are guy stuff while women want to see emotional dramas? Personally I want to see intelligent action movies with strong women and sexy men. So keep telling me what's worth seeing and what's not. Unlike most other magazines I believe you actually know what you're talking about.
-- Cathrine Grønnerød
Virtual Response
Damn good article! ["Virtual Ripoff"] I just discovered this site and am definitely returning. While I agreed with most of the opinions within the text, especially the idea of the current crop of films being cyberpunk-lite, I'm not too sure that you need go so heavy on the 'stealing' of these authors ideas. Sure, you can trawl back through literature and find the beginnings and formations (even the plots) of the movies mentioned. But the ideas that were brought forth in those books don't stay there. Good story ideas and concepts spread out from under the covers and enter the social lexicon of ideas. (A mnemonic). This is one way to measure the worth of 'great' books. At some point it doesn’t matter (much) who first thought of it, because now everybody sees things in that light. It has become a 'common perception' belonging to no one and everyone.
-- Anthony Smith
David Rosiak is certainly correct that The Matrix and other films are heavily indebted to William Gibson and his contemporaries. However, you can't say that he invented the term The Matrix in 1984, when in the mid-1970s the TV series Doctor Who had a story ("The Deadly Assassin") that spent the better part of two episodes inside a computer called "The Matrix". In that story minds are directly jacked into the computer -- not at all different from later cyberpunk stories as well. I don't know if this is the first time "the Matrix" would have been used as a computer that contains a virtual reality, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Love the site and the attitude, and I don't think there's a better genre webzine out there, with so many of them mainly interested in getting quick news items out, you're able to get some more detailed articles.
--Michael Lee
http://www.misfit.org
Certainly an interesting article. I would personally like to see more people (filmmakers, authors, etc.) cite works that they consider inspiration. Everything's derivative in some way (some works more obviously than others) and I'd be interested in seeing who claimed familiarity with classic works as opposed to later additions to the canon. I did have one major problem: "Remember the stunning vistas of Blade Runner?" Said vistas were nowhere in evidence in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" This is a case where the film bears almost no resemblance to the work cited as its inspiration. I'm personally willing to allow some latitude, accepting that the things that make a good book will not necessarily make a good movie, and vice versa. But this would seem to be a case that proves Mr. Rosiak's argument that Hollywood waters down classic novels. To my mind, the main difference between Johnny Mnemonic and Blade Runner is the quality of the movie, not faithfulness to the original source.
--Megan Miller
Adventures in the Squirrel Trade
I came across "The Carter Conundrum" on a fan website and read it with great interest, even posting a link to the article on a discussion board I frequent and respect. To my surprise and disappointment, my fellow philes didn't see the value of taking a good, hard, well-researched look at the so-called Creator. The site that originally posted the link even took it down and *apologized* for lending the 11th Hour or you any credibility!
I find it quite funny that the same group of folks who have in the past referred to the man as MFCC, or MotherF***ing Chris Carter, would dismiss your article as a hit-piece by a writer with "an agenda." Since when did finding the Truth Out There become something to be dismissed as a personal attack?
-- Annette G.
I would like to praise you for the article "Carter Conundrum: The Man, The Files, and an attempt to find The Real Truth" by pisher. I've read a great many mainstream articles on Carter and the X-Files, but this is superior to almost all of them. It is certainly one of the best. Honest and insightful, you are going a long way to improve the reputation on online publishing as a valuable and intelligent alternative to mass market publications. I look forward to reading the second part.
-- Ellerbee
So far so good! I found your article informed and even handed -- neither fawning nor fire-breathing. I'm a big X-Files fan from the beginning (despite season 7), but the Carter Cult has always carried a whiff of self-promotion. Alright, it stunk of self aggrandizement -- a stink which became really unpleasant when the ratio of good Carter episodes to obsequious Carter articles began skewing the wrong way. Would it have killed him to mention the names Morgan, Wong and Morgan? As for influences, it'd be tough to ignore the Donald Sutherland/Kevin Costner scene in JFK. The rip-off would emerge as an overt homage later in the series, but the influence had to be there from the outset.
-- Sean Blythe
The Copyright Craze
Hi, 11th Hour! I've been reading for a while, and you guys are, consistently, brilliant. I always really enjoy intelligent, funny, cynical, sarcastic writing from intelligent women who appear to share my tastes and have the right sort of perspective on why I'm a genre fan (i.e. great action, fun stories, sometimes good writing, and a little more than occasionally, hot guys to drool over). Myself and my friends (a solid demographic of 25-35 women, with, yeah, a couple of token guys thrown in) always eagerly await the next issue!
Okay, the sucking up having been dispensed with (well, I thought it would be silly to start of my first commentary letter to you without giving you the kudos you so richly deserve), I had a note that I wanted to make on the article about "The Campaign Craze". In it, you quoted: "And Zyliq provided this insight: 'FOX has to go after a website now and then or they will be in danger of losing their copyrights...'"
Actually, this is not quite accurate -- although it tends to be something that many fans believe. Copyright is not the thing that you ever have to defend. You have it, and you cannot lose it... Fox's recent actions are truly weaselly, but unfortunately, legal; pictures, sounds, and footage all do belong to them, and they do own the rights to control the copying and distribution of that material. "Copyright" can never be lost; but that doesn't mean there aren't reasons to defend it. Usually it comes down to a matter of money. In most copyright cases, infringement is based on whether the infringer is making money off the infringing use, or interfering with the owner's ability to make the same money. So it's difficult to say who would win, if Fox were to bring a case against a fan website to court. Probably Fox, but even that is uncertain. Fan websites don't generally make a huge profit off what they're doing; but Fox might make a case out of the fan websites providing material for free as interfering with Fox's ability to make money off of distribution of the same material. I personally think Fox are nitwits, but I also like to try to understand the motivations of my enemies.
-- Holly Hutchison
Wow, she used 'Rachel' and 'self-control' in the same paragraph...
My surfing has never been so well-rewarded as chancing on your enticing webzine. Highest praise for Rachel, a woman after my own heart with the toys to prove it. ["An Angel on My Desk"] My eclectic (but disorganized) collection of X-Files movie tie-ins, Magic cards plus the PC version, Dr. Who tapes, Pokemon paraphernalia, sci-fi movies, books, every Final Fantasy book ever made, a sexy little atomic Game Boy, NU64, Playstation and the countless other trappings of all my genre love-affairs generally speak for me on this subject. Trust me, if I had wanted it, I would have gone after that hot 3-D chess set long ago. I'm more than a little impressed at her self-control!
--Caroline Gardner
Thanks to everyone who wrote in; although we can't publish every letter we do read all of them and greatly appreciate your input. Responses to this issue can be sent to letters@the11thhour.com.
|
